State of Utah v. Guadarrama

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Francisco Guadarrama,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990251-CA

F I L E D
February 17, 2000
  2000 UT App 42 -----

First District, Logan Department
The Honorable Thomas Willmore

Attorneys:
Todd A. Utzinger, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Lee Edwards, Logan, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Billings.

PER CURIAM:

The parties have filed a "Stipulated Motion for Summary Reversal" whereby the State concedes "that the trial court did not engage in the thorough inquiry of [Guadarrama's] ability to proceed pro se and did not advise [Guadarrama] of the dangers and disadvantages of self representation as required by State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987) and State v. Heaton, 958 P.2d 911 (Utah 1998)." Although the trial court questioned Guadarrama about whether he intended to proceed without counsel, it did not conduct a formal colloquy as envisioned by Heaton, 958 P.2d at 918.(1) In the absence of a colloquy, we may "look at the record and make a de novo determination regarding the validity of the defendant's waiver only in extraordinary circumstances." No exceptional circumstances are present here. Id.

Accordingly, we reverse Guadarrama's conviction and remand for further proceedings as may now be proper.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

1. Guadarrama also signed a waiver of his right to counsel and though it said that Guadarrama was knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel, there was no indication that he was informed of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.